I just watched your video. I was posting my video about Sanford when you were posting your pastor. Kind of ironic, I guess.

But you know, I don't get it.

All of this pain and suffering and guilt about sex. I really don't get it.

The woman at the well got it. She was a complete social outcast because of her sexual sin, but Jesus didn't treat her as such. Instead, He told her where she could find "living water" - Him.

You'll notice that, despite the topic of the talk, homosexuality itself was barely discussed, although a point was clearly made towards the end that the bible does clearly teach sexual relationships were created for men and women.

I can't help but think that all of this pain and suffering that your pastor is describing has more to do with issues related to dishonesty, betrayal, manipulation and power imbalances than with the sexual act itself.

I tend to agree with that. I don't think he equates pain and suffering to the sexual act itself.

Because it can be, for so many people. You'd have to agree that the amount of suffering in this world of a sexual nature is huge. But what causes the suffering? That's a very big question, one I doubt we could ever resolve on an internet forum. Sadly, some of the suffering is caused by folk who use the bible to make homosexuals feel like they alone are sinners. I hate that it happens, because we're all sinners according to the bible. (that we all do wrong I won't get an argument on, but I know you'll all hate hearing it called sin).

Is it easier to blame sex and sin for your own poor life choices and bad behavior, than it is to own up to your own bad decisions?

Confessing sin isowning up and recognising your own bad choices, and not attempting to wallow in the mindset of "that's just natural that I would do that" or "I was born with a sinful nature, so I will just get on with it"

I mean, take this Sanford guy. I don't really care where he puts his dick. But someone who abandons his post, lies to his wife, (and everyone else) and doesn't even have contact with his 4 children on father's day - while there is a national search going on to determine if he is dead or alive? That is not about sex.

Well...yes and no. It is about sex, in that quite clearly sexual temptation is just a massive thing for men. There can be no argument on that front. It's a very powerful urge, and even men who try to please God can be overcome by the urge and commit horrible acts and do horrible things.

The people of South Carolina would agree with you and your pastor. They have forgiven him. Re elected him. But I think this whole "we are all sinners too" bs gives him and everyone else a free pass to NOT take responsibility for their own behavior.

Perhaps you could expand on that? Not quite sure what other outcome would have been more acceptable to you? Seems to me that begrudging someone a second chance is not something you would normally do. I certainly don't think he'll be living the life he used to. His relationships with his wife and kids will be changed for the worse, in spite of whatever genuine (and commendable) efforts they make to forgive him.

I think the man is scum, and I'm embarrassed that he is an elected representative of my country. The fact that he has the power to legislate other people's intimate relationships is beyond comprehension. And I think blaming sex and sin is a cheap cop out.

I understand that emotion. But if moral spotlessness was neceessary for holding public office...well, you can guess my conclusion.

@ lotanddaughters, if that's what you insist on believing, that the bible is instructing that gay people TODAY be put to death, then I can't stop you and no amount of contextual explanation will convince you.

All passages are from the New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised:

"For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished." -Malachi 3:6

"The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation for ever." -Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." -Isaiah 40:8

"Go ye then, and stoneth every fucking faggot who cometh in unto thine neighbor's ass. These are supposedethly the Words of the Lord thy God. Unlesseth, of course, thou art one seriously trolling fucking poe. Hence, the joke is on us who are those without faith, who hath wasteth by even bothering with Babble On." -Lot 12:34

I presume that you consider those verses lend weight to your belief that God desires homosexuals living today be put to death.

I don't think they do. If you do, please explain why.

And have you read the essay I linked to on those leviticus verses? It was written by someone who has obviously given the matter an awful lot of thought and done a lot of research. if you genuinely are open to a perspective different to your own, it's good reading.

Notice how you capitalize "TODAY". You, and your liar(name one pastor who isn't) are clearly saying that the Bible's teachings of putting homosexual men to death don't apply to people living today. For all I know, your pastor might even be saying that the Bible never said that.

Actually, I don't think the pastor mentions that in his sermon. But you are certainly correct in that our church, and the overwhelming majority of churches, believes that the Leviticual law only applied to the theocratic nation of Israel at a certain point in history.

Before we go much further I want to discuss something, because it's really difficult sometimes when discussing the bible and Christianity with non-believers who are only arguing against a "partial God". By that I mean, for the purpose of a discussion on something (such as homosexuality) a non-believer will talk about what God says, (even though they deny His existence), and point to passages in the bible wherein God does something that strikes them as abominable (like decreeing that practicing homosexuals be put to death). This is cited as evidence that God is not worthy of worship even if he does exist. However, in doing so, I think a non-believer loses sight of the fact that, if God really exists, He created all life, sustains all life and is the only possible ultimate authority. How can a created being tell its creator that it is wrong? How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?Does that make sense?

Here, it's like you are proving that you can actually comprehend what you are reading, just like me and Fred Phelps. So what do you do? You concede the point without saying "Good point", "Fair enough", "I was wrong", or anything of that sort. But, you are not showing us that you are acknowledging to conceding the point, because taking into account our vast experience with contradictory arguers, we find it highly likely that you will jump back and forth between these two contradictory positions for as long as you are a member here. We have thoroughly dealt with you, your fellow Christians, and your stupid Bible[1]-- all of which contradict themselves on a regular basis.

I'm guessing that you have as much disdain for Sanford's actions as I do. Or perhaps you are more forgiving than I am, and you are willing to exonerate him, just as his constituents have.

Sort of discussed this in my earlier post. I don't think he's been "exonerated", and I doubt that I'm more forgiving than you in a general sense. On this issue, I probably have slightly more understanding and an uncomfortable insight into the spped with which sexual temptation can spirall out of control.

I ask, because when I look at this story, I'm really much less interested in the sex, and more interested in the other things that you Christians also consider sins, but don't seem to talk as much about.

I sadly concede the point. Christians are hypocritically vocal on the issue. Just remember that the loudest voices aren't always the majority voices.

He lied. To so many people, including the people closest to him. He betrayed his family's trust. He failed to keep a commitment that he had promised to keep. And pride in there too. Almost delusions of omnipotence, that he could just get away with it.

You're describing Sanford, but you could be describing any one of millions of people in the world, everyday. I think that's importatnt to remember.

You know, there have been some studies which indicate that there is a biological tendency in some (most?) men to "spread their seed." It is so common, it is almost a cliché. Starter wives and mid-life crises and mistresses. But when you think about it, it makes evolutionary sense. Women tend[1] to be more drawn to monogamy. And that makes evolutionary sense too. The urges of (some) men to spread their seed around diversifies the gene pool, while the urge to find someone to provide during the childbearing years increases the survival of next generation. But some women also seem to want to diversify the gene pool, and find themselves wanting sexual relations with men other than their husbands. So clearly not ALL men and not ALL women have these tendencies. But for those who do, this is not a weakness or a character flaw. It is something that is born into them. And certainly there are social influences which promote these tendencies to a subset of humanity.

Yes, it is. Definitely make it if you're prepared to keep it, even in light of incredible hardships. It won't be possible without genuine, sacrificial love for one another and a genuine wilingness to forgive.

So some men, and some women, get to a point in their lives in which they question their decision to continue to honor the pledge that they made to their spouses. And what do they do? Well, they have a bunch of options. They can decide that the commitment that they made, and the benefits of maintaining that commitment, are more important than their other (natural) urges. So they establish their priorities, and either deny their biological urges, or they spend a disproportionate amount of time in the bathroom, fantasizing about, but not acting on those urges. Or, they can decide to have clandestine relationships, fulfilling their biological urges, while attempting to maintain all of the benefits of their marriage, and hoping that their spouse does not find out. Or, they could decide that these urges are so important, that they trump the commitment that they made to their spouse, and decide to change their priorities and leave the marriage.

Sort of depressing isn't it. Not that I'm in total agreement with the possibilities you mention, but no denying that a marriage will at some point be tested due to sex.

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment. In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option.

I don't see this as being any different from a clandestine affair. The committment isn't any less broken just because the extra-marital sex is discussed first.

Do you think that the sex was the biggest sin in this sad story? Breaking the marriage vow? What about all those other sins? Lies? Deception? Pride? Arrogance? Sloth? (He literarily ran away from his job of governing the state) Or was sex the sin that trumps all the others?

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment. In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option.

I don't see this as being any different from a clandestine affair. The committment isn't any less broken just because the extra-marital sex is discussed first.

So, lying isn't any different from open-ness. Sex really does trump everything else as the One Big Sin.

a non-believer will talk about what God says... and point to passages in the bible wherein God does something that strikes them as abominable

That is because you would likely see those things as abominable too.

At first blush, yes. It's a completely understandable default reaction based on where and when we live, but based also (amd most importantly) on the belief that we can determine what is good and bad without deferring to any absolute moral authority.

A plain reading of the OT portrays yhwh as an abominable character. Early xians - gnostics - saw this too. It's not just us.

It portrays God as being utterly and completely incapable of co-exisiting with sin. Which is certainly depressing, until you read the NT and see how God dealt with the problem, once and for all, for anyone who cares to admit the problem and have it dealt with.

I depends. For one, if the created being was created with the capacity to know and the creator had the capacity to be wrong. Remember, when speaking of morality, we are yhwh's equal. Eve at the fruit of moral knowledge. So, that is another way.

That's an intereesting thing to dwell on, actually. The bible tells us God was sorry he'd created mankind at the point just prior to the flood...but I'm not sure that means He was wrong. I'd give an analagy but I know you dislike them.

As to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of it or they would die. They did eat of it, and it did bring death and knowledge, but that doesn't mean mankind were suddenly equal with God. It had the opposite effect, removing us from God. That was the lie Satan fed them that was swallowed hook, line and sinker. It's his most successful lie, been working ever since.

So, you do or do not own your responsibility for assigning yourself the position of audience when reading the Bible?

I have a responsibility/ability/compulsion/tendency/willingness to determine what parts of the bible can be applied to me and my life, and to determine what parts are relevant to humanity generally, and what parts were intended for a particular people at a particular time.

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment. In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option.

I don't see this as being any different from a clandestine affair. The committment isn't any less broken just because the extra-marital sex is discussed first.

So, lying isn't any different from open-ness. Sex really does trump everything else as the One Big Sin.

I don't undeeratnd how you got that from what I said. Can you clarify?

I have a responsibility/ability/compulsion/tendency/willingness to determine what parts of the bible can be applied to me and my life, and to determine what parts are relevant to humanity generally, and what parts were intended for a particular people at a particular time.

I hope that clarifies my position.

As long as you acknowledge that it's your own decision, rather than a god's or an author's. You're the 'god' here.

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment. In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option.

I don't see this as being any different from a clandestine affair. The committment isn't any less broken just because the extra-marital sex is discussed first.

So, lying isn't any different from open-ness. Sex really does trump everything else as the One Big Sin.

I don't undeeratnd how you got that from what I said. Can you clarify?

I'll leave the quotes in for clarity here. See the part I bolded? You and Quesi were comparing two situations. In one, someone has sex outside of marriage and lies about it (a clandestine affair). In the other, someone has sex outside of marriage openly and with permission of the spouse.

You see no difference between these. In your own words, you don't see how one is any different from the other. So lying is no big deal - it does not make any difference to you. The sex is all that matters.

I have a responsibility/ability/compulsion/tendency/willingness to determine what parts of the bible can be applied to me and my life, and to determine what parts are relevant to humanity generally, and what parts were intended for a particular people at a particular time.

I hope that clarifies my position.

As long as you acknowledge that it's your own decision, rather than a god's or an author's.

Sure. We can all look at the same bible (translation differences notwithstanding) and make a decision on what it is saying, and to whom.

As to whether its the divinely inspired word of God we're reading and not a really bizarre compilation of history and fiction? That's a heart decision, ultimately. Only God can change hearts.

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment. In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option.

I don't see this as being any different from a clandestine affair. The committment isn't any less broken just because the extra-marital sex is discussed first.

So, lying isn't any different from open-ness. Sex really does trump everything else as the One Big Sin.

I don't undeeratnd how you got that from what I said. Can you clarify?

I'll leave the quotes in for clarity here. See the part I bolded? You and Quesi were comparing two situations. In one, someone has sex outside of marriage and lies about it (a clandestine affair). In the other, someone has sex outside of marriage openly and with permission of the spouse.

You see no difference between these. In your own words, you don't see how one is any different from the other. So lying is no big deal - it does not make any difference to you. The sex is all that matters.

If that's not what you meant to say, then what did you mean to say?

I just meant that the committment is broken either way, and in my opinion its no less tragic if that comes about by mutual consent or by deception. Actually, I guess its sad in different ways. With the deception, only one person has broken the committment. (and of course I think deception is bad). But in that situation at least (one can presume) one of the partners is willing to stick with the committment.

With the mutual consent, both have given up on the committment. And I think thats very sad, no matter how liberating or thrilling it might be.

And none of that should be construed to mean its only the act of having sex with someone outside the marriage thats important. It's just one way to break a committment, but sadly a common one.

I just meant that the committment is broken either way, and in my opinion its no less tragic if that comes about by mutual consent or by deception. Actually, I guess its sad in different ways. With the deception, only one person has broken the committment. (and of course I think deception is bad). But in that situation at least (one can presume) one of the partners is willing to stick with the committment.

You say that you just meant the commitment is broken either way. And then, in the part I bolded (and in what follows), you put the lie to that statement. "No less tragic". Not just "no less a break of commitment" but "no less tragic". You do realize that determination to follow a commitment is not the only virtue one can have, eh? There are others, which you are refusing to consider in this moral judgment.

With the mutual consent, both have given up on the committment. And I think thats very sad, no matter how liberating or thrilling it might be.

They have given up on the commitment not to have sex with other people. They have not necessarily given up on their commitments to each other in other respects. Again, you treat sex as if it's the only thing that matters.

They have given up on the commitment not to have sex with other people. They have not necessarily given up on their commitments to each other in other respects. Again, you treat sex as if it's the only thing that matters.

I'm not aware of there being any specific committment to not have sex with other people when vows aare exchanged. Be a pretty funny church service...

It's expressed more like "I vow to forsake all others". Maybe its different in North America?

For some reaso I'm reminded of the revised edict in "Animal farm" - All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

MM, I am having a little difficulty following your arguments across the forums because it seems like you change what you say depending upon which thread youre in, offering contradictory statements (much like the bible, so I should not be shocked)

Perhaps interpretation isn't quite the right word to use when it comes to understanding the intent of a biblical passage, because I do not agree that biblical passages are subject only to an "eye of the beholder" process. Passages are examined using historical, geographical and cultural context. Some passages even blind Freddy can see are figurative, some passages even blind Freddy can see are meant to be taken literally, but some passages are not so clear and require a lot of careful study.

And in that example, you treat determination to follow commitment as the only virtue worthy of consideration in the relationship. Open-ness, honesty, and trust don't factor in at all. You stated as much by equating the two scenarios.

MM, I am having a little difficulty following your arguments across the forums because it seems like you change what you say depending upon which thread youre in, offering contradictory statements (much like the bible, so I should not be shocked)

Perhaps interpretation isn't quite the right word to use when it comes to understanding the intent of a biblical passage, because I do not agree that biblical passages are subject only to an "eye of the beholder" process. Passages are examined using historical, geographical and cultural context. Some passages even blind Freddy can see are figurative, some passages even blind Freddy can see are meant to be taken literally, but some passages are not so clear and require a lot of careful study.

Whether you include yourself among the audience is a matter of your own personal decision/interpretation. Own it.

Yes. But then, everything is subject to our own decision and/or interpretation to a certain degree.

Bold mine.

So is it subject to interpretation or is the bible clear?

The bible is subject to interpretation, like anything, and everybody is free to interpret it any way they so desire. I questioned the word interpretation in my discussion with kcrady because he seemed to be concluding that, just because different people have different ideas about a passage, it is impossible to know what the passage really is saying. That I disagree with.

My point is that there is a process which can be followed to help in understanding the bible. No-one is forcing you to follow the process, or me, and in that sense the bible can say whatever you personally want it to.

It seems that Christians are accused of giving their personal spin on a passage based only on what they want it to say. Some Christians, no doubt, do just that. But it is simply not true to say that of all Christians, and it is not true to say that there is no objective methodology which can be used to most accurately determine the meaning of a passage.

And in that example, you treat determination to follow commitment as the only virtue worthy of consideration in the relationship. Open-ness, honesty, and trust don't factor in at all. You stated as much by equating the two scenarios.

By equating the two examples I sought to point out that both result in a broken committment. That is all. I did not say that open-ness, honesty and trust are not worthy of consideration in a relationship. You chose to infer that, and even when I have clarified you continue to claim thats what I mean.

What more do I need to do to convince you that I consider those things worthwhile also?

I'm not aware of there being any specific committment to not have sex with other people when vows aare exchanged. Be a pretty funny church service...

I never meant to imply such a thing. Care to answer what I actually said though?

You said that they have broken the committment to not have sex with other people. Right? I was pointing out that I am unaware of any such specific committment. My understanding of a marriage committment is that you commit to a life with your partner and that partner only. Sexual relations are one part of that life.

By equating the two examples I sought to point out that both result in a broken committment. That is all. I did not say that open-ness, honesty and trust are not worthy of consideration in a relationship. You chose to infer that, and even when I have clarified you continue to claim thats what I mean.

Yes. You. Fucking. Did. You didn't just say they were equal in breaking of commitment[1], you said they were equally tragic. Your words. That takes everything into account, and apparently nothing but the commitment made a difference to whether it was equally tragic. Own your own words.

You said that they have broken the committment to not have sex with other people. Right? I was pointing out that I am unaware of any such specific committment. My understanding of a marriage committment is that you commit to a life with your partner and that partner only. Sexual relations are one part of that life.

Exactly. It's included in the vows you refer to, even if it's not singled out specifically. Or at least, that's what they usually mean. What if that part (sex only with one's partner) was specifically excluded from a couple's marriage vows? I suppose that wouldn't be a "marriage" to you...

By equating the two examples I sought to point out that both result in a broken committment. That is all. I did not say that open-ness, honesty and trust are not worthy of consideration in a relationship. You chose to infer that, and even when I have clarified you continue to claim thats what I mean.

Yes. You. Fucking. Did. You didn't just say they were equal in breaking of commitment[1], you said they were equally tragic. Your words. That takes everything into account, and apparently nothing but the commitment made a difference to whether it was equally tragic. Own your own words.

To me, the outcome is tragic either way. It only needs a breaking of that committment for me to find it tragic. I explained that they were tragic in different ways, and in doing so recognised that dishonesty, open-ness and trust are important. You may disagree with that opinion, and clearly you do, but I find it quite rude of you to insist that I have a certain opinion when i keep telling you I don't.

If I'm guilty of something here, it's not explaining myself very well. Fine. But how much more do i need to clarify myself?

You said that they have broken the committment to not have sex with other people. Right? I was pointing out that I am unaware of any such specific committment. My understanding of a marriage committment is that you commit to a life with your partner and that partner only. Sexual relations are one part of that life.

Exactly. It's included in the vows you refer to, even if it's not singled out specifically. Or at least, that's what they usually mean. What if that part (sex only with one's partner) was specifically excluded from a couple's marriage vows? I suppose that wouldn't be a "marriage" to you...

To me, the outcome is tragic either way. It only needs a breaking of that committment for me to find it tragic. I explained that they were tragic in different ways, and in doing so recognised that dishonesty, open-ness and trust are important.

You said they were just as tragic, even though it was in different ways.

Actually, I guess its sad in different ways. With the deception, only one person has broken the committment. (and of course I think deception is bad).

.

Yes, this is the spot where you explained that it was even worse if both parties were open to it. Thus priviledging the commitment over anything concerning trust, etc. This sort of crap is why I found your back-track so unconvincing.

Actually, I guess its sad in different ways. With the deception, only one person has broken the committment. (and of course I think deception is bad).

.

Yes, this is the spot where you explained that it was even worse if both parties were open to it. Thus priviledging the commitment over anything concerning trust, etc. This sort of crap is why I found your back-track so unconvincing.

I didn't say it was even worse if both parties were open to it, but I do see how you could reach that conclusion from the way I worded my post. I don't think I can say which is worse. I find the breaking of a committment sad, by whatever means it occurs.

The bible is subject to interpretation, like anything, and everybody is free to interpret it any way they so desire. I questioned the word interpretation in my discussion with kcrady because he seemed to be concluding that, just because different people have different ideas about a passage, it is impossible to know what the passage really is saying. That I disagree with.

My point is that there is a process which can be followed to help in understanding the bible. No-one is forcing you to follow the process, or me, and in that sense the bible can say whatever you personally want it to.

It seems that Christians are accused of giving their personal spin on a passage based only on what they want it to say. Some Christians, no doubt, do just that. But it is simply not true to say that of all Christians, and it is not true to say that there is no objective methodology which can be used to most accurately determine the meaning of a passage.

Then what youre saying is that people CAN interpret it the way they want, but you have the correct way, anyone that disagrees with your way is wrong.

The bible is subject to interpretation, like anything, and everybody is free to interpret it any way they so desire. I questioned the word interpretation in my discussion with kcrady because he seemed to be concluding that, just because different people have different ideas about a passage, it is impossible to know what the passage really is saying. That I disagree with.

My point is that there is a process which can be followed to help in understanding the bible. No-one is forcing you to follow the process, or me, and in that sense the bible can say whatever you personally want it to.

It seems that Christians are accused of giving their personal spin on a passage based only on what they want it to say. Some Christians, no doubt, do just that. But it is simply not true to say that of all Christians, and it is not true to say that there is no objective methodology which can be used to most accurately determine the meaning of a passage.

Then what youre saying is that people CAN interpret it the way they want, but you have the correct way, anyone that disagrees with your way is wrong.

Not what I am saying at all. There is agreement and dis-agreement, sure, but there is a very sound methodology which can be used to aid understanding.

Feel free to disagree with the way I and others interpret the bible, but explain why you disagree.

I didn't say it was even worse if both parties were open to it, but I do see how you could reach that conclusion from the way I worded my post. I don't think I can say which is worse. I find the breaking of a committment sad, by whatever means it occurs.

So they're still on-par. You can't say which is worse. So a couple agreeing to modify their marriage agreement is no better, in your view, than one member of the couple betraying the other. Hmm.

Should we extend this principle to contract law, such that if both parties agree to change the terms of the contract, they're both considered to be legally in breach of contract?

Not what I am saying at all. There is agreement and dis-agreement, sure, but there is a very sound methodology which can be used to aid understanding.

Feel free to disagree with the way I and others interpret the bible, but explain why you disagree.

Well, what you are saying is impossible unless you purposely interpret the bible wrong. If there is a sound methodology to interpret and understand the bible, then there is no reason to be getting it wrong, unless you do so on purpose. Also the only way to know whether there is a method is to actually know the method... if you dont know the method, theres no way you can know there is one.

Since you claim to know there is one, what is it? this should clear up a bunch of stuff and bring all of the sects together... now that you will have revealed the correct way to read the bible.

Not what I am saying at all. There is agreement and dis-agreement, sure, but there is a very sound methodology which can be used to aid understanding.

Feel free to disagree with the way I and others interpret the bible, but explain why you disagree.

Well, what you are saying is impossible unless you purposely interpret the bible wrong. If there is a sound methodology to interpret and understand the bible, then there is no reason to be getting it wrong, unless you do so on purpose. Also the only way to know whether there is a method is to actually know the method... if you dont know the method, theres no way you can know there is one.

Since you claim to know there is one, what is it? this should clear up a bunch of stuff and bring all of the sects together... now that you will have revealed the correct way to read the bible.

lets start small. Did you read my post in the other thread concerning the supposed commandement for me to kill non-believers? Has your understanding of it been changed at all? Agree or disagree?

I didn't say it was even worse if both parties were open to it, but I do see how you could reach that conclusion from the way I worded my post. I don't think I can say which is worse. I find the breaking of a committment sad, by whatever means it occurs.

So they're still on-par. You can't say which is worse. So a couple agreeing to modify their marriage agreement is no better, in your view, than one member of the couple betraying the other.

Not in my view, no. Both are sad. I think we might finally have achieved clarity here.